A study of the abilities in oral language comprehension of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination - Portuguese version: a reference guide for the Brazilian population

• Main Authors: L.L. Mansur, M. Radanovic, L. Taquemori, L. Greco, G.C. Araújo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica 2005-02-01
• Series: Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
• Subjects: Oral comprehension; Age; Schooling; Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination; Brazilian Portuguese
• Online Access: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2005000200017
• ISSN: 0100-879X; 1414-431X

We analyzed the performance of 162 normal subjects, subdivided into groups according to age and schooling, in the oral comprehension tasks of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination translated and adapted to Brazilian Portuguese to obtain a profile of performance for the Brazilian population, as well as cut-off scores for each task, and to determine the best combination of tasks that distinguish normal from aphasic subjects, as a guide for clinicians. The normal subjects were compared to 69 aphasics. Age alone influenced the performance in the designation of actions (subjects above 70 years showing the worst performance); schooling alone influenced the comprehension of forms, colors and numbers (subjects with less than four years of education showing a poorer performance). Both age and schooling influenced the performance in Body Part Identification (BPI) and Complex Ideational Material (CIM) with mean values of 70.5 ± 3.3 (Word Discrimination, WD), 18.9 ± 1.4 (BPI), 14.7 ± 0.9 (Commands), and 10.3 ± 1.7 (CIM) for the whole sample; the cut-off scores obtained were 65 (WD), 17.5 (BPI), 14 (Commands), and 9.5 (CIM) for the whole sample. Logistic regression showed that the combination of BPI + Commands + CIM was the most efficient in differentiating normal subjects from aphasics, with 72.5% sensitivity and 97.6% specificity. However, for low-education subjects, BPI and Commands were sufficient for this differentiation (75.7% sensitivity and 84.7% specificity). The main contribution of this study was to provide reference values that are far more representative of our population to be used by health professionals in Brazil, taking into account cultural differences.